The Jameis Winston Case- Show Me the $ v Show Me Innocence

Posted On: December 10, 2013 | By Linda Kenney Baden

Courtesy Yahoo Sports

I took a screenshot of the Yahoo Sports tweet where I first learned that the accuser, who alleges that Florida State University football team quarterback Jaemis Winston sexually assaulted her, is going to hold a press conference (presumably with her lawyer) before the Heisman Trophy announcement. What does this really mean? This is the first step in a full-blown media campaign whose ultimate goal is to seek a large monetary settlement. The accuser is now going to try to extract a monetary settlement by using a full court press starting just before the Heisman trophy announcement. Jameis Winston, can show the world that the prosecution decision not to charge him, is correct. If he is innocent, he too can choose to step onto another court first- the law court. A pre-emptive strike- file the lawsuit against his accuser for defamation among other claims first.

I do not say this lightly. I was a prosecutor and trial team leader in Monmouth County, New Jersey. During that employment, I was at times the prosecutor appointed to the sex crimes unit. With that responsibility, I was also assigned by the first assistant prosecutor to develop the standardized sexual assault protocol for the hospital-law enforcement interaction. It involved drafting standardized medical investigation procedures and concomitant forms, selecting and providing the rape kits to the hospitals, and having the hospitals all agree to sign onto the new interdisciplinary, interagency, sexual assault protocol. All medical personal had to be trained in it along with police officers and investigators. I also had a close familial relative who was raped in her own home. So I come from a place of familiarity and involvement regarding sex crimes investigation and prosecution. I do not take either the lightly.

But neither do I take lightly the possibility that a charge, if improper, can ruin a person’s life. In fact, I distinctly remember a case where the blood proteins (pre- DNA) did not match the proteins of the semen found in the victim despite her eyewitness identification of the arrestee as the perpetrator of a brutal home invasion rape. Science proved that her eyewitness identification was flawed and I had to break the news to the victim. Sometimes science is involved in determining the truth of a claim of sexual assault but not in a he said- she said case where the defense is consent. That is the case in its proverbial nutshell of this female accuser versus FSU quarterback Jameis Winston.

I have reviewed the evidence released by the Florida’ State’s attorney in the Jameis Winston. The decision not to prosecute Winston is the right decision legally in my opinion based on my experience prosecuting sex crimes. I would have made the same decision as a prosecutor. Merely because someone claims sexual assault against a high profile person- athlete or otherwise- does not mean that such an unconsented to sex act occurred. I have seen false allegations made a number of times. It happens. When in private practice, a person claiming assault under some of the circumstances mimicking the Winston incident once consulted me, I refused to take the case. Some years later, I ran into the past prospective client who admitted to me that he/she had made up the claim and didn’t seek out other representation when I didn’t believe the story (after doing some investigation.) Had I taken the case I would have helped this client perpetrate a fraud- indeed a crime- on the system and the accused.

Us lawyers use media, social or otherwise in our cases. In today’s world, it is unavoidable. Earlier Winston’s lawyer Tim Jansen got into a flap with Heather Cox from ESPN. He essentially alleged that she had ambushed Winston by asking questions about the closed criminal case after the FSU win over Duke University for the ACC championship. On behalf of his client, who he has represented well in the criminal matter, he claimed:

FSU officials told her certain areas were off limits during the sideline interview. She agreed and then violated those terms.

But this type of kerfuffle with the media needs to be kept to a minimum now. In the long run it does not help Winston if the press turns against him because they start feeling the need to protect their own. This is especially important in the Cox/Jansen twitter engagement because the original charge against Jansen’s client is a claim of using power to assault a female. Winston needs to make the public- through the media- his friend and ardent supporter. His reputation and his future are on the line. It appears the accuser, through her press campaign, is on the verge of making her motto the iconic line from the 1996 movie Jerry McGuire – Show Me the Money. If she does, it could be very counterproductive to her credibility, which the State’s attorney has already put in issue. But at the same time, the public’s battle cry to Winston could very well be ‘Show Me Innocence.’

4 Responses to "The Jameis Winston Case- Show Me the $ v Show Me Innocence"

After Listening to the accusers attorney and acknowledgment of State attorney Cappleman’s confirmation of Winston’s witness conflicting statements to law enforcement I am now looking at my past post on your site to be a real possibility.

Winston’s witness originally stated the door was cracked open and he witnessed Winston standing with his hands on his hips and the female kneeling in front of him giving Winston head. The witness goes on to say he walked into the room and took pictures of the act. When asked by law enforcement to produce the pictures the witness states he deleted them. The witness went on to say after giving Winston head, the accuser and Winston then laid on the bed.

In follow up questioning by law enforcement the witness gave a different statement, this time around he said, “the door was closed” (first it was cracked) “they were laying on the bed” (he first said Winston was standing with hands on hips and accuser was kneeling in front of him) “I asked if I could filmed them” (prior he stated he did film them) These conflicting statements were confirmed by Cappleman.

I have never taken a date rape drug nor have I ever given it to a person but from my experience acquired from watching testimony from experts in cases on TV, ( and I have watched many cases) It is always explained the drug used has an effect of confusion on the victim. If I am understanding this incorrectly please correct me.

This being said, When the victim was first interviewed by police upon her accusations it was noted she seemed to be speaking as if she was confused, not making sense. After acknowledging this the interviewing officer thought it was possible she was either on drugs or had been drinking, after testing her the results indicated she wasn’t intoxicated at the time nor were drugs found i her system.

I now ask, what drugs was she tested for? I ask because isn’t it true if let’s say a person is tested for weed that doesn’t mean a person would test positive for a date rape drug. For a specific drug to be acknowledged in a person doesn’t the test have to target that specific drug? Please educate me if I am wrong when thinking this.

From what I understand when the rape kit testing was done there was no testing to determined at the time whether or not the accuser was given anything. Her being confused suggest there could have been a possibility.

It seems to me the original investigation wasn’t done within protocol, not that I know what that may be, but there seems to be inconstancy with the witness for Winston and inconsistency by law enforcement with the way such a case should have been handled from the outset.

Again, this being said doesn’t indicate to me the accuser was just looking for financial gain, let’s not forget, Winston was no more than a kid being red-shirted at the time and no one knew at that time he would have achieved such on the field he enjoys today.

Based off what I posted in the past and today I am coming closer to the conclusion the accuser may have been right.

I want to start by saying excellent article. I was wondering when I would hear the victim was looking to go civil and you answered that question for me. I also thought the sideline interview with Winston by Cox of ESPN was a cheap shot. What really got to me was once she saw he wanted to no part, she continued to pound… I am surprised she is still employed at ESPN, I for one wouldn’t accept that from an employee of mine, the additional pursuit once he initially backed off. I still have thought about his innocence for the mere fact when this happened and she went to the police he wasn’t famous so I don’t see a motive on her side. I won’t talk like I know what happened because I wasn’t there but based off what I feel from what I have read, they were out drinking and I feel sometimes males take a niceness by a female as being flirtatious. Considering both had a few drinks and her willingness to go back to his place was even more for him to think there was a chance at ass. However, I believe she was just being nice and he took it for more. Once she said the word NO! It doesn’t matter what may have happened prior, all bets are off. At the point of hearing the word no Winston was all hot and bothered and the word NO wasn’t taken seriously. His semen was found on her panties, there was no indication any was found in her vagina,.. this being said it sounds to me like he may have just ejaculated on her… to me if this is what took place it is a violation of a female in which i believe is a form of rape, please let me know if i am wrong, in the sense it isn’t considered rape. Like I said at the time of the incident, she had no motive to cry rape, not financially, he was a nobody. Always love your work Linda.

SCM on Facebook

The information contained on SportsCourtMedia.com and/or posted by Tamara N. Holder
and/or Linda Kenney Baden (hereinafter “SCM”) is provided for informational purposes only, and should not
be construed as legal advice, or an offer to perform services on any subject matter. Any information sent to SCM via Internet e-mail or through the SCM Web site is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. SCM is not a law firm. The transmission of information to SCM, in part or in whole, and/or communication with SCM via Internet and/or e-mail through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between SCM and any recipients.